ArticleHealth promotion perspectives2025
Machine Learning Predictive Models for Survival in Patients with Brain Stroke.
Article in Health promotion perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive Value of Machine Learning for Poststroke Mortality Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Mechanisms and integrative machine learning approaches to blood-brain barrier biomarker profiling for personalized ischemic stroke management.Physiological reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to harness the predictive power of machine learning (ML) algorithms for accurately predicting mortality and survival outcomes in brain stroke (BS) patients. Methods: A total of 332 patients diagnosed with BS were enrolled in the study between April 21, 2006, and December 22, 2007, and then followed for 15 years (until 2023). Mortality outcomes were modeled using various statistical techniques, including the Cox model, decision trees, random survival forests (RSF), support vector machines (SVM), gradient boosting, and mboost. The best-performing model was selected based on diagnostic performance metrics: specificity, sensitivity, precision, accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and negative predictive value. Results: The results indicate that ML models in small sample sizes, particularly the SVM, outperformed the Cox model in predicting mortality and survival over 15 years, achieving an accuracy of 85% and an AUC of 0.765 (95% CI 0.637-0.83). Furthermore, the study identified important variables, including blood pressure history, waterpipe smoking, lack of physical activity, type of cerebrovascular accident, current smoking status, sex, and age, which provide valuable insights for clinicians in risk assessment. Conclusion: Our study showed that the SVM model outperforms the Cox model in predicting 15-year mortality and survival, particularly in small sample sizes. Moreover, the identification of key risk factors such as blood pressure history, waterpipe smoking, lack of physical activity, type of cerebrovascular accident, current smoking status, sex, and age highlights the need for their consideration in clinical assessments to enhance patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.